If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

More Backporting Madness: X Server 1.8 To 1.7

Phoronix: More Backporting Madness: X Server 1.8 To 1.7

With Ubuntu 10.04 LTS shipping with the Linux 2.6.32 kernel rather than the latest stable release (the Linux 2.6.33 kernel), there has been some back-porting of code to this older release. The Lucid Lynx is using the 2.6.32 kernel since this is a Long-Term Support release and so Canonical and the Ubuntu kernel team has been more conservative this time around...

I have one machine that is still running 8.04. I skipped 8.10 because I heard lousy things about it. Skipped 9.04 because I didn't want to do incremental upgrades, and skipped 9.10 for much the same reason, and because 10.04 was just around the corner anyway. Have been looking forward to 10.04 so I could upgrade this older system in a single step and remain on a solid LTS release. But 10.04 is sounding less stable with all the back porting.

couldnt they have put effort in the X server 1.8 branch as a hole instead of working for themselves? maybe i dont get the situation right.. all desicions when what program release will be due out, have been made far before oktober last year, havent they?
i wonder if the fglrx driver made this choice come up by some amount. cause i didnt get the reason (or this quote) at all, as im not a native english speaker. maybe someone can explain please?

P.S.: im sry for having accused Canonica/Ubuntu for not being too much a part of linux community. now i know they are not as they are a profit oriented company (in some way).

Despite all this backporting, Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is a great release and running better than I would have ever expected. I still think they should have gone with Xserver 1.8 and Linux 2.6.33 (and maybe Mesa 7.8) though...

Ubuntu urges other distros to pick a common, stable base, so that Linux can become an easier target for commercial businesses. What would they tell them now if they went ahead and pulled the latest and greatest?

So now they're cheating and started to backport stuff while still claiming they're on "kernel 2.6.32" and "X.Org 1.7."

It would have been better if they had made a normal Ubuntu release and just tagged it as a pre-LTS release. Then in half a year when everything has stabilized they could switch the label to full LTS and start promoting it.

The ones who needs stable releases would get a platform which had been thoroughly tested. The ones who wants to live closer to the edge would also gain since each and every release would bring something new.